Soon after the accession of Queen Elizabeth, a new translation of the Bible was undertaken by royal command, and under the direction of archbishop Parker. Distinct portions, fifteen at least, were allotted to as many persons, eminent for their learning and abilities; they all performed the work assigned to them, and the whole was afterwards revised with great care by other critics. This translation was published in 1568, with a preface written by the archbishop; and it is generally called the Bishops' Bible, because eight of the persons originally concerned in it were bishops. The Romanists, finding it impossible to keep the Scriptures out of the hands of the common people, printed at Rheims, in the year 1582, an English New Testament, translated from the Vulgate, but they retained in it many Eastern, Greek, and Latin words, and contrived to render it unintelligible to Edinburgh, Geneva, Amsterdam, &c. The New Testament of this is said to have been the first English edition of the Scriptures which was divided into verses. The Greek and Latin Bibles were not anciently divided into chapters or verses, at least not like those now used. Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, in the reigns of king John and of king Henry the Third, is said to have first contrived the division into chapters; others ascribe the invention to cardinal Hugo, a Dominican monk of the 13th century, who adopted also subdivisions, distinguished by the seven first letters of the alphabet placed in the margin, as convenient for the use of the Concordance, which he first planned for the Vulgate. About 1445, Rabbi Mordecai Nathan, alias Rabbi Isaac Nathan, a western Jew, to facilitate the conduct of a controversy with the Christians, introduced this division of chapters into the Hebrew Bibles, and resumed also the ancient division into verses numerically distinguished by marginal letters at every fifth verse, and from him the Christians received and improved the plan; and Robert Stephens adopted the division into the New Testament, of which he published a Greek edition in 1551. Vide Præfat. Buxtorf. ad Concord. Bibl. Hebraic. Morin. Exercit. Bibl. Præf. ad Concord. Græc. N. Test. Fabricii Bibliothec. Grec. lib. iv. cap.5. Prid. vol. i. book 5.”—Gray. common readers." The Old Testament was afterwards published at Douay, in two volumes, the former in 1609, and the latter in 1610. In the conference held at Hampton Court, in 1603, before king James the First, between the Episcopalians and Puritans, Dr. Reynolds, the speaker of the Puritans, requested his majesty that a new translation of the Bible might be made; alleging, that those which had been allowed in former reigns were incorrect; and in 1604, the king commissioned fifty-four learned men of the universities and other places to make a new and more faithful translation of the Bible, according to rules which he himself prescribed. Seven of those who were appointed either died before the work was begun, or declined to engage in it; and the other forty-seven were divided into six companies, who met at Cambridge, Oxford, and Westminster, and translated the books respectively assigned to them. This work was begun in the spring of the year 1607, and at the end of three years it was finished. Two persons selected from the Cambridge translators, two from those of Oxford, and two from those of Westminster, then met at Stationers' Hall in London, and read over and corrected the whole. Lastly, it was reviewed by Bilson bishop of Winchester, and Dr. Myles Smith, who prefixed arguments to the several books. Dr. Smith wrote the marginal references were afterwards added by bishop Lloyd, one of the seven bishops imprisoned in the reign of James the Second. preface, and the person alluded to in it, as "the chief overseer and taskmaster," is supposed to have been Bancroft bishop of London. This translation was published in 1611; and the improvements made in it were such as might have been expected from the judicious care with which it was conducted, and the joint labours of so many distinguished men: "It is a most wonderful and incomparable work, equally remarkable for the general fidelity of its construction, and the magnificent simplicity of its language." This is the translation now in use. Since that time there has been no authorised translation of any part of the sacred volume. a "Happy, thrice happy, hath our English nation been, since God hath given it learned translators, to express in our mother tongue the heavenly mysteries of his holy word, delivered to his church in the Hebrew and Greek languages; who, although they may have in some matters, of no importance unto salvation, as men, been deceived and mistaken, yet have they faithfully delivered the whole substance of the heavenly doctrine contained in the Holy Scriptures, without any heretical translations Tyndal's translation of 1530 1535 1537 1539 1540 1560 1568 1582, &c. 1611 16 ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. [PART III. or wilful corruptions. With what reverence, joy, and gladness, then ought we to receive this blessing! Let us read the Scriptures with an humble, modest, and teachable disposition; with a willingness to embrace all truths which are plainly delivered there, how contrary soever to our own opinions and prejudices; and in matters of difficulty, readily hearken to the judgment of our teachers, and those that are set over us in the Lord; check every presumptuous thought, or reasoning, which exalts itself against any of those mysterious truths therein revealed; and if we thus search after the truth in the love of it, we shall not miss of that knowledge which will make us wise unto salvation." a If a Johnson's Hist. Account. the reader wishes for more minute information upon the subject of this chapter, he may consult Johnson's Historical Account of the several English Translations of the Bible, and an Historical View of the English Biblical Translations, by Dr. Newcome, late primate of Ireland. PART III. CHAPTER THE SECOND. a OF THE LITURGY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. BEFORE the Reformation, the public service of our church was performed only in Latin, and different Liturgies were used in different parts of the kingdom. These Liturgies consisted of prayers and offices, some of which had been transmitted from very ancient times, and others were of later origin, accommodated to the Romish religion, which was a Till comparatively modern times, the word liturgy was used exclusively to describe that portion of the service which we now commonly call the Communion Service. It is conjectured that there were anciently four liturgies of chief consideration in the Catholic church. These were, the Oriental liturgy; the liturgy of Alexandria; the Roman, and the Gallican liturgy. From these, others sprung, but differing only in some unimportant points. It is questioned, whether there ever existed a liturgy peculiar to the British church, and the probability is, that it received both its clergy and its church services from Gaul. The church, as established among the Saxons by Augustine, could scarcely have failed to receive the Sacramentary of Gregory; and this, we may believe, continued to be strictly observed, till extensive dioceses were established, and the prelates who presided over them deemed it expedient, and had sufficient confidence, to introduce modified forms of the service, and make such alterations of ceremony, as the state of their people seemed to require. Hence in the course of time there were the "uses" as they were called, or formularies of Sarum, York, Lincoln, and other places; that of Sarum, owing to the care of Osmund, bishop of the diocese in 1078, obtaining higher consideration than any of the rest. Others, however, continued to exist, and they underwent a general and careful examination, when the reformers of the national church proposed to establish a form of service which should be free from the corruptions, and yet not want the venerable character and authority of antiquity. See Mr. Palmer's highly valuable work on the "Antiquities of the English Liturgy."-EDITOR. |